Truth and Knowledge

Truth and Knowledge: vi. Epistemology Free of Assumptions and Fichte's Science of Knowledge

On-line since: 22nd December, 2000

WE HAVE NOW
defined the idea of knowledge. In the act of cognition
this idea is directly given in human consciousness. Both outer and
inner perceptions, as well as its own presence are given directly to the
“I,” which is the center of consciousness. (It is hardly necessary
to say that here “center” is not meant to denote a particular
theory of consciousness, but is used merely for the sake of brevity in order
to designate consciousness as a whole.) The I feels a need to discover
more in the given than is directly contained in it. In contrast to the
given world, a second world — the world of thinking — rises up to
meet the I and the I unites the two through its own free decision, producing
what we have defined as the idea of knowledge. Here we see the
fundamental difference between the way the concept and the directly
given are united within human consciousness to form full reality, and
the way they are found united in the remainder of the world-content.
In the entire remainder of the world picture we must conceive an
original union which is an inherent necessity; an artificial
separation occurs only in relation to knowledge at the point where
cognition begins; cognition then cancels out this separation once
more, in accordance with the original nature of the objective world.
But in human consciousness the situation is different. Here the union
of the two factors of reality depends upon the activity of
consciousness In all other objects, the separation has no significance
for the objects themselves, but only for knowledge. Their union is
original and their separation is derived from the union. Cognition
separates them only because its nature is such that it cannot grasp
their union without having first separated them. But the concept and
the given reality of consciousness are originally separated, and their
union is derived from their original separation; this is why cognition
has the character described here. Just because, in consciousness, idea
and given are necessarily separated, for consciousness the whole of
reality divides into these two factors; and again, just because
consciousness can unite them only by its own activity, it can arrive
at full reality only by performing the act of cognition. All other
categories (ideas), whether or not they are grasped in cognition, are
necessarily united with their corresponding forms of the given. But
the idea of knowledge can be united with its corresponding given only
by the activity of consciousness. Consciousness as a reality exists
only if it produces itself. I believe that I have now cleared the
ground sufficiently to enable us to understand Fichte's Science of
Knowledge through recognition of the fundamental mistake contained in
it. Of all Kant's successors, Fichte is the one who felt most keenly
that only a theory of consciousness could provide the foundation for
knowledge in any form, yet he never came to recognize why this is so.
He felt that what I have called the second step in the theory of
knowledge, and which I formulated as a postulate, must be actively
performed by the I. This can be seen, for example, from these words:

“The science of knowledge, insofar as it is to be a systematic
science, is built up in the same manner in which all possible
sciences, insofar as they are systematic, are built up, that is,
through a determination of freedom; which freedom, in the science of
knowledge, is particularly determined: to become conscious of the
general manner of acting of the intelligence. ... By means of this
free act, something which is in itself already form, namely, the
necessary act of the intelligence, is taken up as content and put into
a new form, that is, the form of knowledge or of consciousness. ...”
[ 110 ]

What does Fichte here mean by the “acting of intelligence” if we
express in clear concepts what he dimly felt? Nothing other than the
production of the idea of knowledge, taking place in consciousness.
Had Fichte become clear about this, then he would have formulated the
above principle as follows: A science of knowledge has the task of
bringing to consciousness the act of cognition, insofar as it is still
an unconscious activity of the I; it must show that to objectify the
idea of knowledge is a necessary deed of the I.

In his attempt to define the activity of the I, Fichte comes to the
conclusion: “The I as absolute subject is something, the being
(essence) of which consists merely in postulating its own existence.”
[ 111 ]
For Fichte, this postulation of the I is the primal unconditioned
deed, “it is the basis of all consciousness.”
[ 112 ]
Therefore, in Fichte's
sense too, the I can begin to be active only through an absolute
original decision. But for Fichte it is impossible to find the actual
content for this original activity postulated by the I. He had nothing
toward which this activity could be directed or by which it could be
determined. The I is to do something, but what is it to do? Fichte did
not formulate the concept of knowledge which the I must produce, and
in consequence he strove in vain to define any further activity of the
I beyond its original deed. In fact, he finally stated that to
investigate any such further activity does not lie within the scope of
theory. In his deduction of representation, he does not begin from any
absolute activity of the I or of the not-I, but he starts from a state
of determination which, at the same time, itself determines, because
in his view nothing else is, or can be contained directly in
consciousness. What in turn determines the state of determination is
left completely undecided in his theory; and because of this
uncertainty, one is forced beyond theory into practical application of
the science of knowledge.
[ 113 ]
However, through this statement Fichte
completely abolishes all cognition. For the practical activity of the
I belongs to a different sphere altogether. The postulate which I put
forward above can clearly be produced by the I only in an act which is
free, which is not first determined; but when the I cognizes, the
important point is that the decision to do so is directed toward
producing the idea of cognition. No doubt the I can do much else through
free decision. But if epistemology is to be the foundation of all knowledge,
the decisive point is not to have a definition of an I that is
“free,” but of an I that “cognizes.”
Fichte has allowed himself to be too much influenced by his subjective
inclinations to present the freedom of the human personality in the clearest
possible light. Harms, in his address, On the Philosophy of Fichte,
(p. 15) rightly says: “His world-view is predominantly and exclusively
ethical, and his theory of knowledge has no other feature.” Cognition
would have no task to fulfill whatever if all spheres of reality were
given in their totality. But the I, so long as it has not been
inserted by thinking into the systematic whole of the world-picture,
also exists as something merely directly given, so that it does not
suffice to point to its activity. Yet Fichte is of the opinion that
where the I is concerned, all that is necessary is to seek and find it.
“We have to search for the absolute, first, and unconditioned
fundamental principle of human knowledge. It cannot be proven nor
determined if it is to be absolute first principle.”
[ 114 ]
We have seen that
the only instance where proof and definitions are not required is in
regard to the content of pure logic. The I, however, belongs to
reality, where it is necessary to establish the presence of this or
that category within the given. This Fichte does not do. And this is
why he gave his science of knowledge a mistaken form.
Zeller
[ 115 ]
remarks that the logical formulas by which Fichte attempts to arrive at the
concept of the I only lightly hide his predetermined purpose to reach
his goal at any cost, so that the I could become his starting point.
These words refer to the first form in which Fichte presented his
science of knowledge in 1794. When it is realized that, owing to the
whole trend of his philosophy, Fichte could not be content with any
starting point for knowledge other than an absolute decree, it becomes
clear that he has only two possibilities for making this beginning
appear intelligible. One possibility is to focus the attention on one
or another of the empirical activities of consciousness, and then
crystallize out the pure concept of the I by gradually stripping away
everything that did not originally belong to consciousness. The other
possibility is to start directly with the original activity of the I,
and then to bring its nature to light through self-contemplation and
self-observation. Fichte chose the first possibility at the beginning
of his philosophical path, but gradually went over to the second.

On the basis of Kant's synthesis of “transcendental apperception”
[The perception of an object involving the
consciousness of the pure self as subject. (Translator)]
Fichte came to the conclusion that the activity of the I consists
entirely in combining the material of experience into the form of
judgment. To judge means to combine predicate with subject. This is
stated purely formally in the expression: a == a. This proposition
could not be made if the unknown factor x which unites the two
a's did not rest on an absolute ability of the I, to postulate. For the
proposition does not mean a exists, but rather: if a exists,
then so does a. In other words there is no question of postulating
a absolutely. In order, therefore, to arrive at something which is
valid in a quite straightforward way, the only possibility is to declare the
act of postulating as such to be absolute. Therefore, while a is
conditional the postulation of a is itself unconditional. This
postulation, however, is a deed of the I. To the I is ascribed the
absolute and unconditional ability to postulate. In the proposition
a == a, one a is postulated only because the other a is
already postulated, and indeed is postulated by the I. “If a
is postulated in the I, then it is postulated, or then it is.”
[ 116 ]
This connection is
possible only on condition that there exists in the I something which
is always constant, something that leads over from one a to the other.
The above mentioned x is based on this constant element. The I which
postulates the one a is the same as the I which postulates the other
a. This means that I == I. This proposition expressed in the form of a
judgment: If the I exists, then the I exists, is meaningless. The I is
not postulated by presupposing another I; it presupposes itself. This
means: the I simply is, absolutely and unconditionally. The hypothetical
form of a judgment, which is the form of all judgments, when an absolute
I is not presupposed, here is transformed into a principle of absolute
existence: I simply am. Fichte also expresses this as follows:
“The I originally and absolutely postulates its own being.”
[ 117 ]
This whole deduction of Fichte's is clearly nothing but a kind
of pedagogical discussion, the aim of which is to guide his reader to
the point where knowledge of the unconditional activity of the I dawns
in him. His aim is to bring the activity of the I emphatically home to
the reader, for without this activity there is no I.

Let us now survey Fichte's line of thought once more. On closer
inspection one sees that there is a break in its sequence; a break,
indeed, of a kind that casts doubt upon the correctness of his view of
the original deed of the I. What is essentially absolute when the I
postulates? The judgment is made: If a exists, then so does a.
The a is postulated by the I. There can, therefore, be no doubt about
the postulation as such. But even if the I is unconditioned insofar as its
own activity is concerned, nevertheless the I cannot but postulate
something. It cannot postulate the “activity, as such, by
itself,” but only a definite activity. In short: the postulation must
have a content. However, the I cannot derive this content from itself, for
by itself it can do no more than eternally postulate its own postulation.
Therefore there must be something which is produced by this postulation,
by this absolute activity of the I. Unless the I sets to work on something
given which it postulates, it can do “nothing” and
hence cannot postulate either. Fichte's own principle actually shows
this: The I postulates its existence. This existence is a category.
This means we have arrived at our principle: The activity of the I is
to postulate, as a free decision, the concepts and ideas of the given.
Fichte arrives at his conclusion only because he unconsciously sets
out to prove that the I “exists.” Had he worked out the concept of
cognition, he would then have arrived at the true starting point of a
theory of knowledge, namely: The I postulates cognition. Because
Fichte is not clear as to what it is that determines the activity of
the I, he simply characterizes this activity as the postulation of
being, of existence. In doing so, he also limits the absolute activity
of the I. If the I is only unconditioned in its “postulation of
existence.” everything else the I does must be conditioned. But then,
all possible ways to pass from what is unconditioned to the
conditioned are blocked. If the I is unconditioned only in the one
direction described, it immediately ceases to be possible for the I to
postulate, through an absolute act, anything but its own being. This
makes it necessary to indicate the basis on which all the other
activities of the I depend. Fichte sought for this in vain, as we have
already seen.

This is why he turned to the other of the two possibilities indicated
for deducing the I. As early as 1797, in his First Introduction to the
Science of Knowledge, he recommends self-observation as the right
method for attaining knowledge of the essential being of the I:

“Be aware of yourself, withdraw your attention from all that surrounds
you and turn it toward your inner being — this is the first demand that
philosophy makes on the pupil. What is essential is not outside of
you, but solely within yourself.
[ 118 ]

To introduce the science of knowledge in this way is indeed a great
advance on his earlier introduction. In self-observation, the activity
of the I is actually seen, not one-sidedly turned in a particular
direction, not as merely postulating existence, but revealing many
aspects of itself as it strives to grasp the directly given
world-content in thinking. Self-observation reveals the I engaged in
the activity of building up the world-picture by combining the given
with concepts. However, someone who has not elaborated the above
considerations for himself — and who therefore does not know that the I
only arrives at the full content of reality when it approaches the
given with its thought-forms — for him, the process of knowledge
appears to consist in spinning the world out of the I itself. This is
why Fichte sees the world-picture more and more as a construction of
the I. He emphasizes ever more strongly that for the science of
knowledge it is essential to awaken the faculty for watching the I
while it constructs the world. He who is able to do this appears to
Fichte to be at a higher stage of knowledge than someone who is able
to see only the construction, the finished product. He who considers
only the world of objects does not recognize that they have first been
created by the I. He who observes the I while it constructs, sees the
foundation of the finished world-picture; he knows the means by which
it has come into being, and it appears to him as the result of
presuppositions which for him are given. Ordinary consciousness sees
only what is postulated, what is in some way or other determined; it
does not provide insight into the premises, into the reasons why
something is postulated in just the way it is, and not otherwise. For
Fichte it is the task of a completely new sense organ to mediate
knowledge of these premises. This he expresses most clearly in his
Introductory Lecture to the Science of Knowledge, delivered at Berlin
University in the autumn of 1813:

“This science presupposes a completely new inner sense organ, through
which a new world is revealed which does not exist for the ordinary man at
all.” “The world revealed by this new sense, and therefore also
the sense itself, is so far clearly defined: it consists in seeing the
premises on which is based the judgment that ‘something is’;
that is, seeing the foundation of existence which, just because it is
the foundation, is in itself nothing else and cannot be defined.”
[ 119 ]

Here too, Fichte lacks clear insight into the content of the activity
carried out by the I. And he never attained this insight. That is why
his science of knowledge could never become what he intended it to be:
a philosophical foundation for science in general in the form of a
theory of knowledge. Had he once recognized that the activity of the I
can only be postulated by the I itself, this insight would also have
led him to see that the activity must likewise be determined by the I
itself. This, however, can occur only by a content being given to the
otherwise purely formal activity of the I. As this content must be
introduced by the I itself into its otherwise quite undetermined
activity, the activity as such must also be determined by the I itself
in accordance with the I's own nature. Otherwise its activity could not
be postulated by the I, but at most by a “thing-in-itself” within
the I, whose instrument the I would be. Had Fichte attempted to
discover how the I determines its own activity, he would have arrived
at the concept of knowledge which is to be produced by the I. Fichte's
science of knowledge proves that even the acutest thinker cannot
successfully contribute to any field of knowledge if he is unable to
come to the right thought-form (category, idea) which, when
supplemented by the given, constitutes reality. Such a thinker is like
a person to whom wonderful melodies are played, but he does not hear
them because he lacks an ear for music. Consciousness, as given, can
be described only by someone who knows how to take possession of the
“idea of consciousness.”

Fichte once came very near the truth. In his Introduction to the Science
of Knowledge (1797), he says that there are two theoretical systems:
dogmatism — in which the I is determined by the objects; and idealism
— in which the objects are determined by the I. In his opinion both are
possible world-views. Both are capable of being built up into a consistent
system. But the adherents of dogmatism must renounce the independence of the
I and make it dependent on the “thing-in-itself.”
For the adherents of idealism, the opposite is the case. Which of the
two systems a philosopher is to choose, Fichte leaves completely to
the preference of the individual. But if one wishes the I to retain
its independence, then one will cease to believe in external things
and devote oneself to idealism.

This line of thought fails to consider one thing, namely that the I
cannot reach any choice or decision which has some real foundation if
it does not presuppose something which enables it to do so. Everything
determined by the I remains empty and without content if the I does
not find something that is full of content and determined through and
through, which then makes it possible for the I to determine the given
and, in doing so, also enables it to choose between idealism and
dogmatism. This something which is permeated with content through and
through is, however, the world of thinking. And to determine the given
by means of thinking is to cognize. No matter from what aspect Fichte
is considered, we shall find that his line of thought gains power and
life when we think of the activity of the I, which he presents as grey
and empty of content, as filled and organized by what we have called
the process of cognition.

The I is freely able to become active of itself, and therefore it can
also produce the category of cognition through self-determination; in
the rest of the world, by objective necessity the categories are
connected with the given corresponding to them. It must be the task of
ethics and metaphysics to investigate the nature of this free
self-determination, on the basis of our theory of knowledge. These
sciences will also have to discuss whether the I is able to objectify
ideas other than those of cognition. The present discussion shows that
the I is free when it cognizes, when it objectifies the ideas of
cognition. For when the directly given and the thought-form belonging
to it are united by the I in the process of cognition, then the union
of these two elements of reality — which otherwise would forever remain
separated in consciousness — can only take place through a free act.

Our discussion sheds a completely new light on critical idealism.
Anyone who has acquainted himself intimately with Fichte's system will
know that it was a point of vital importance for this philosopher to
uphold the principle that nothing from the external world can enter
the I, that nothing takes place in the I which is not originally
postulated by the I itself. Yet it is beyond all doubt that no
idealism can derive from the I that form of the world-content which is
here described as the directly given. This form of the world-content
can only be given; it can never be constructed out of thinking. One
need only consider that if all the colors were given us with the
exception of one single shade, even then we could not begin to provide
that shade out of the I alone. We can form a picture of distant
regions that we have never seen, provided we have once personally
experienced, as given, the various elements needed to form the
picture. Then, out of the single facts given us, we combine the
picture according to given information. We should strive in vain to
invent for ourselves even a single perceptual element that has never
appeared within our sphere of the given. It is, however, one thing
merely to be aware of the given world: it is quite another to
recognize its essential nature. This latter, though intimately
connected with the world-content, does not become clear to us unless
we ourselves build up reality out of the given and the activity of
thinking. The essential What of the given is postulated for the I only
through the I itself. Yet the I would have no occasion to postulate
within itself the nature of something given if it did not first find
itself confronted by a completely undetermined given. Therefore, what
is postulated by the I as the nature and being of the world is not
postulated without the I, but through it.

The true shape is not the first in which reality comes before the I,
but the shape the I gives it. That first shape, in fact, has no
significance for the objective world; it is significant only as a
basis for the process of cognition. Thus it is not that shape which
the theory of knowledge gives to the world which is subjective; the
subjective shape is that in which the I at first encounters it. If,
like Volkelt and others, one wishes to call this given world
“experience,” then one will have to say: The world-picture which,
owing to the constitution of our consciousness, appears to us in a
subjective form as experience, is completed through knowledge to
become what it really is.

Our theory of knowledge supplies the foundation for true idealism in
the real sense of the word. It establishes the conviction that in
thinking the essence of the world is mediated. Through thinking alone
the relationship between the details of the world-content become
manifest, be it the relation of the sun to the stone it warms, or the
relation of the I to the external world. In thinking alone the element
is given which determines all things in their relations to one
another.

An objection which Kantianism could still bring forward would be that
the definition of the given described above holds good in the end only
for the I. To this I must reply that according to the view of the
world outlined here, the division between I and external world, like
all other divisions, is valid only within the given and from this it
follows that the term “for the I” has no significance when
things have been understood by thinking, because thinking unites all
opposites. The I ceases to be seen as something separated from the external
world when the world is permeated by thinking; it therefore no longer makes
sense to speak of definitions as being valid for the I only.